 |
| Dr. Chuck Phelps |
It
has become vogue to declare one’s loyalty to “historic fundamentalism” while
distancing oneself from “cultural fundamentalism.” “Historic Fundamentalism” is defined by those
who affirm this paradigm as belief in the cardinal doctrines of the Christian
faith. “Cultural Fundamentalism,” according
to those who disenfranchise from it, is fixated on music, dress, ministry
associations, and methods.1 While such an argument may be appealing, it
is simply not valid. Failure to
biblically explain one’s position on matters pertaining to Christian liberty by
attacking a newly created straw man called “cultural fundamentalism,” will
cause increasing polarization among those who profess to know the Lord and love
His Word. Peace among the brethren will
not come as a result of pummeling the straw man called “cultural
fundamentalism.” Why not? Because it’s not about “cultural
fundamentalism,” it’s about personal separation!
Does
Charles Spurgeon represent “Cultural
Fundamentalism?”
In 1887,
C.H. Spurgeon wrote,
“At the present time it is a matter of notoriety that preachers of no mean repute defend the play-house, and do so because they have been seen there. Is it any wonder that church members forget their vows of consecration and run with the unholy in the ways of frivolity, when they hear that persons are tolerated in the pastorate who do the same? . . . . The fact is that many would like to unite church and stage, cards and prayers, dancing and sacraments. If we are powerless to stem this torrent, we can at least warn men of its existence, and entreat them to keep out of it. When the old faith is gone, and enthusiasm for the gospel is extinct, it is no wonder that people seek something else in the way of delight. Lacking bread, they feed on ashes; rejecting the way of the Lord, they run greedily in the path of folly.” (The Sword and the Trowel, 1887)
Think
about it . . .
1. The
term “fundamentalism” was coined by Curtis Lee Laws in The Watchman Examiner in 1920.
Charles Spurgeon predates “fundamentalism” and thus cannot legitimately
be called a fundamentalist. Yet, those who attack the straw man of “cultural
fundamentalism” must see that the straw
man of their making sounds a lot like Spurgeon.
2. The
cross-denominational Niagara Conference is considered to be the seed-bed out of
which fundamentalism grew. The Niagara
Creed was written in 1878. Statement #12
of Niagara’s Creed says,
“We believe that we are called with a holy calling to walk, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, and so to live in the Spirit that we should not fulfill the lusts of the flesh; but the flesh being still in us to the end of our earthly pilgrimage needs to be kept constantly in subjection to Christ, or it will surely manifest its presence to the dishonor of His name: Rom. 8:12-13; 13:14; Gal. 5:16-25; Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:1-10; I Pet. 1:14-16; I John 3:5-9.”
Niagara’s
Creed, which both predates and lays the foundation for the fundamentalist movement
sounds a lot like the straw man now called “cultural fundamentalism.”
With the
statements of Spurgeon and Niagara in mind, it is without doubt revisionist
history to seek to divorce “cultural separation” from historic
fundamentalism. Personal separation
predates fundamentalism and flows through every pore of genuine
Christianity. Attacking personal
separation by calling it a new name fails to deal with the fact that our faith
requires personal separation. Those who
attack personal separation without interacting with Scripture may garner a
following but they do not promote true biblical faith that interacts with
culture and the holiness of God.
It’s not
about “cultural fundamentalism.” It’s
about consecration as evidenced by and through personal separation! Article #48 of The Fundamentals is simply entitled “Consecration.” (Note: The
Fundamentals are the articles that birthed “fundamentalism.”) It is evident to all who will read this
article and others in The Fundamentals that
historic fundamentalism understood and interacted with biblical instruction
concerning personal separation. Those
who seek to divorce personal separation from historic fundamentalism are revisionists
who demonstrate an appalling ignorance of and perhaps even cavalier arrogance
toward true biblical Christianity before the birth of fundamentalism, during
the formation of historic fundamentalism and flowing from historic
fundamentalism.
For the
genuine Christian, “personal Separation” predates “fundamentalism.” It is rooted and grounded in our call to
holiness (I Pet. 1:15-16; I John 2:15-17). Even the word “church” (ekklesia, “called out”) is embedded with the necessity to separate.
Sadly, there are those who want to make
a movement called fundamentalism defend separation and forget that separation
is defended by and declared in Scripture.
Beware of
those who belittle personal separation by attacking “cultural fundamentalism.” To belittle separatism is to belittle
Scripture and to ignore what it means to live a life of consecration. It’s not about “cultural fundamentalism,” it
never has been. It’s about living a
consecrated life of personal separation to please a holy God.
Dr. Chuck
Phelps
(Originally appeared April 23, 2013.)
Footnotes:
1)
Dr. Matt Olson: Pursuing Transparency With ChangeSome may ask, “Are you fundamentalists?” If you are talking about believing the fundamentals of the faith, being willing to separate over them, and being committed to living a holy life before God—then the answer is a resolute, “Yes.” If you are talking about our being willing to separate over “cultural fundamentalism” and its demands to separate over Bible translations, music, dress, methods of ministry, secondary associations, etc., the answer is an equally resolute, “No.” We cannot. (Italics added)Related Reading:
Dr. Rolland McCune, Militancy Has Always Characterized Fundamentalism
On April 24, 2013 the FBFI’s Proclaim & Defend blog has published the article by Dr. Phelps. Please see, Chuck Phelps on Personal Separation.
No comments:
Post a Comment